Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Galvanising the public sector into action

By Mike Pope - posted Thursday, 5 February 2009


Can governments be trusted to ensure the public sector acts responsibly by doing all it can to reduce CO2 emissions? What should we be expecting governments to do in this regard? Is the public sector willing to do anything or will it simply pass on higher operating costs to end-users - you and me?

The public sector and most of its many publicly owned businesses are monopolistic in character. They are not renowned for being either efficient or keenly competitive. They can and do pass on higher operating costs to their customers rather than explore and adopt ways of reducing overheads, such as energy costs.

There are a number of ways in which the public sector can - and sometimes does - act to reduce CO2 pollution and operating costs. The fact that governments refuse to tell the public what they are doing to achieve these outcomes is not conclusive evidence that they are doing little or nothing, but it is a pretty good indicator that this may be the case.

Advertisement

The most significant way of reducing emissions is to use less electricity generated from fossil fuels by using energy more efficiently and/or replacing it with energy generated from renewable sources. There are many ways in which the public sector can do this, and earn rather than spend money and encourage others to do likewise. Measures to achieve these desirable outcomes include the following:

1. Actively promote the use of solar hot water panels for all domestic, industrial and other purposes to replace water heating using electricity.

Many householders do not realise that by installing solar hot water (SHW) panels, their electricity bills can be reduced by 25-35 per cent. They are often not aware that government subsidies of as much as $1,000 are available to those who install SHW. They may not know that the purchase and installation costs can be recovered within five years or that installing a SHW panel adds value to their property.

Governments at all levels are well aware of these facts. Yet there is no explanation why so many publicly owned properties, such as housing commission homes, office blocks and other facilities using hot water, are not fitted with SHW. All levels of government operate or own businesses, many of them very large undertakings, most of which use electricity generated from fossil fuels to produce their hot water needs.

In most cases, public servants can not say how many of their properties are not fitted with SHW panels, let alone inform the public what programs are proposed to rectify this problem. They remain tight lipped when asked what installation targets have been set, what funding has been allocated or what potential savings in CO2 emissions and electricity use have been, or are expected to be, achieved.

The Opposition in Parliament rarely press for information or hold government accountable for the lack of progress in these areas. Local government councillors do not seek information from their mayors or bureaucrats. Calls for more information from the public are ignored, except by those councils which are making an effort to retro-fit panels and are proud of their efforts.

Advertisement

2. Reduce electricity consumption by using lighting more economically and more efficient light bulbs in all government offices, facilities and publicly owned businesses.

Save the world by changing the light globes in government offices? Highly unlikely! However the fact is there are millions of light globes in public sector offices and workplaces, the majority of which use electricity inefficiently. Implementing a program to replace them all with the most efficient globes available would certainly reduce consumption of electricity. This would lower CO2 emissions and the electricity bills which are paid out of the rates and taxes we pay.

Similar economies could be realised if the government questioned the extent and need for public lighting:

  • Is it really necessary to floodlight car parks from sunset to sunrise when they are deserted during most hours of darkness?
  • Could some street lights, particularly in towns and cities outside our more crime-prone capitals, be turned off after 1am when most roads are deserted?
  • Do we really need to have “security” lighting turned on all night or could motion-sensors be fitted so that lights turn on only when movement is detected?
  • Are the globes used for street and other outdoor lighting the most efficient available?

3. Use the most efficient electrical appliances in all government offices, facilities and other publicly owned organisations.

Governments own vast numbers of residential properties, as well as offices and other facilities such as schools and hospitals, which are equipped with a wide range of electrical appliances. These include refrigerators, washers, driers, air-conditioners, fans, water-boilers, computers, printers, shredders, photocopiers and so on.

Many of these appliances are old or use electricity inefficiently. It should be public policy that until 50 per cent of national energy needs are produced from renewable sources, these appliances should be replaced with the most efficient ones available. The public sector needs to undertake an audit of appliances, rate them for energy efficiency and compile programs for progressive replacement of the least efficient items.

4. Burn methane produced from council rubbish tips and sewage treatment plants to generate electricity rather than pollute the atmosphere.

All sewage plants and rubbish tips emit methane, often in sufficient quantity to be used for generating enough electricity to operate the facility and produce a surplus. The former saves the cost of purchasing electricity from the National Grid while the latter can be sold to the Grid and generate income. Both contribute to reducing consumption of electricity generated from non-renewable sources.

More than 600 local government councils operate sewerage plants and rubbish tips. Very few have investigated the potential of their facilities to generate electricity. Several of those that have done so, have entered into public-private partnerships with companies engaged in generating electricity. The result has been reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced electricity bills for these councils, increased public availability of green electricity and reduced need for electricity generated from fossil fuels.

5. Ensure that all council vehicles and other plant use bio-diesel or a petrol-ethanol rather than 100 per cent petrol.

Councils are owners and operators of major fleets which include a wide variety of vehicles propelled by petrol and diesel. The same is true of public enterprises such as Australia Post, the railways and other statutory authorities. Their emissions make a large contribution to atmospheric CO2 pollution. This could be significantly reduced if these vehicles could be fuelled with bio-fuels.

The use of fossil fuels is responsible for a net increase in greenhouse gas pollution since it involves emissions of CO2 sequestered and trapped millions of years ago. Bio-fuels merely recirculate CO2 absorbed by plant material from which they are made.

6. Make it a condition of funding that organisations which receive financial assistance from the public sector reduce demand for electricity.

All levels of government provide financial assistance in the form of grants or loans to private sector organisations which range from major enterprises (vehicle manufacturers) to small groups (a local charity). Where the body being funded is of the kind that could reasonably be expected to reduce their use of electricity, the funding body should ask it to provide details of the way in which it proposes to do so and evidence that it has done so.

Funding conditions of this kind have the potential to bring about quite significant reductions in the use of electricity. A university which recently declared itself so poorly funded that it must consider partial closure is nevertheless able to pay for the electricity used to floodlight its fenced carparks every night - after paying for a security service to lock and inspect them several times a night.

7. Give preference to those tendering for supply to the public sector where the tenderer can provide evidence that it has, or will, reduce its use of electricity.

All other things being equal, supply contracts should be awarded to the tender who can show evidence of action that will be taken to reduce consumption of electricity. That reduction could be bought about by the above measures or by simply switching in part or whole to the use of electricity generated from renewable sources.

Uniform policy throughout Australia is needed to ensure that private sector organisations supplying government with goods and services are provided with additional stimulus to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Commonwealth legislation is needed to achieve this.

8. Appoint an officer with prime responsibility for developing policies, targets and programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for advising on ways of doing so.

Each local government council should appoint an environment officer to assist it in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, who can seek financial and other assistance to do so and report on the outcomes of these initiatives. The appointee would be responsible for advising on and monitoring the implementation of measures which the private sector and households could take to reduce emissions.

Most of these measures will create new jobs and reduce CO2 emissions by reducing consumption of electricity generated from fossil fuels. In turn the public sector can either earn money or reduce expenditure - outcomes which are highly desirable. So why isn’t this being fully and properly addressed by public policy? Why is the public sector so reluctant to take action? Why does it refuse to be held publicly accountable?

There are of course several notable exceptions where local government is actively engaged in implementing the measures described above. They are neither averse to committing themselves to action or reporting their achievements. Unfortunately this is not the case where Commonwealth, State or the vast majority of local governments are concerned. Why?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mike Pope trained as an economist (Cambridge and UPNG) worked as a business planner (1966-2006), prepared and maintained business plan for the Olympic Coordinating Authority 1997-2000. He is now semi-retired with an interest in ways of ameliorating and dealing with climate change.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mike Pope

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy